Environmental laws are unfair to minorities and the poor because,
although they are least able to pay, they must bear the greatest
costs for adhering to those laws through lost jobs and higher
prices.

The time is long overdue for government to start considering
the negative economic impact of proposed environmental laws on
impoverished minorities before implementation.

So concludes the results of a recent survey of 69 environmental
justice groups conducted by the National Center for Public Policy
Research. These groups represent a diverse collection of African-American,
Hispanic and Native American activist organizations. These groups
have also identified themselves, to varying degrees, as concerned
about environmental justice for minorities and the poor.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton attempted to establish an environmental
justice policy by issuing an executive order. That order required
federal agencies to promote environmental justice for minorities
and the poor by ensuring that agency policies do not inflict additional
environmental burdens on these communities. The order stems from
the belief that the poor and minorities suffer more environmental
ills than other Americans.

But, as the National Center survey discovered, this concept
of environmental justice is woefully inadequate. While not denying
the need to ensure that minorities are not inflicted with excessive
environmental problems, the groups surveyed by the National Center
understand true environmental justice to include far more than
just the natural environment but the social and economic environment
as well. The results of the survey suggest that true environmental
justice, according to these groups, also means taking into account
the urgent need for economic improvement, better-paying jobs,
educational opportunity and access to better health care.

When asked, for instance, to rank their top public policy concern
out of a list of six issues - education, health care, racism,
economic advancement, environmental progress and crime - only
six percent of environmental justice groups ranked the environment
as their top priority. An overwhelming 91% of respondents ranked
education, health care, fighting racism and economic advancement
as more important than environmental issues.

Likewise, 72% of environmental justice groups disagreed with
the idea that low-income communities should be deprived of jobs,
higher incomes and other economic opportunities if that is necessary
to enforce environmental laws and regulations. This concern for
balancing economic issues with environmental concerns was reflected
throughout the survey. For example, 57% of surveyed groups said
that environmental goals must be balanced by concern for economic
opportunities for the poor. This includes 20% who believe that
minorities must be protected against costly environmental regulations
that deprive them of much-needed jobs.

Indeed, the need for introducing a sense of balance to environmental
policy was of pre-eminent concern. When asked if environmental
laws are applied unevenly such that minorities pay the greatest
costs, in terms of lost jobs and higher prices, of environmental
regulations, 63% agreed. In addition, 47% of environmental justice
groups believe that environmental regulatory agencies are unsympathetic
to the needs and concerns of the poor and minorities. Not surprisingly,
then, 74% of environmental justice groups believe that government
should be required to determine that proposed environmental laws
would not have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income
communities before being adopted.

Despite this clear call for economic fairness, the government's
current environmental justice policy ignores these concerns. Since
President Clinton's 1994 executive order, several poor communities
with substantial minority residents have been deprived of urgently
needed job-creating businesses by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in the name of the Administration's skewed concept
of environmental justice. In one of the more outrageous cases,
Select Steel Inc. proposed to build a $175 million steel mill
that would create 200 jobs in the economically-distressed community
of Genesee County, Michigan. But at the prodding of a handful
of local activists crying environmental racism, the EPA claimed
that pollution from Select Steel would unfairly affect minorities.
In 1998, the company was forced to locate to a more economically
affluent area. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) blasted the EPA's harassment
of Select Steel, wondering "how in heaven's name would the
environment of this nation be improved" by thwarting job-creation
in depressed communities.

Environmental improvement certainly is important but, to many
environmental justice groups fighting on behalf of their impoverished
communities, it is hardly the only policy priority. Jobs, quality
education and health care are often equally or more important
concerns to struggling minorities. Indeed, by not balancing the
need for economic improvement and other goals, the government's
current environmental justice policy becomes environmental injustice.

###

(John K. Carlisle is the director of The National Center for
Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force. He can
be reached at [email protected].)

Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views
of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.